Défiler vers le bas
Back to UPC resources
28 / 09 / 2026

Summary of the five UPC Cases

Organizer: UPCLA (Unified Patent Court Lawyers Association)
Webinar
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM

The UPC’s June 2026 rulings clarified key procedural and jurisdictional issues: in Thiroux v. Valénier and Maguind, expert impartiality was upheld despite pre-hearing contact with the claimant, requiring consistent patent interpretation across proceedings. La Siddhi v. Athena and Infoblox v. Nixu confirmed that neither SME status nor shell-entity structuring exempts claimants from security for costs under Article 69.4 UPCA. Kodak v. Fujifilm established a comprehensive framework for extraterritorial jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA, introducing conditional orders for non-UPC EP designations pending national validity decisions. Valeo v. Robert Bosch confirmed that Article 33.1(3) UPCA gives claimants equal choice between the Central Division and local/regional divisions when defendants sit outside UPC territory, expanding forum-shopping options.

Decision form

Case 1: Tiru v. Valinea & Maguin
Court

Paris Local Division (UPC)

Date

29 May 2026

Timestamp

00 : 06  to 11 : 32

Core Issue
  • Patent infringement case involving ex parte seizure orders and expert impartiality
  • Patent interpretation consistency between infringement and revocation proceedings
Key Facts
  • Tiru obtained two ex parte seizure orders in December 20241
  • Orders were challenged but confirmed by Court of Appeal
  • Patent concerned an oven for processing waste with air injection systems
  • Dispute involved whether secondary air system had cooling function
Legal Framework
  • Rule 196.5 ROP (expert independence and impartiality)
  • Four-step equivalence test from HEG Local Division
Main Ruling
  • Expert’s preparatory meeting with claimant did not affect impartiality
  • No literal infringement found – secondary air’s cooling function not established
  • Equivalent infringement dismissed on same basis
Significance
  • Affirms that expert preparation with applicants is acceptable practice
  • Establishes requirement for consistent patent interpretation between validity and infringement proceedings
Case 2: La Siddhiv. Athena
Court

Court of Appeal (UPC)

Date

1st June 2026

Timestamp

11 : 55 to 18 : 30

Core Issue

Whether SME status exempts a party from providing security for costs

Key Facts
  • La Siddhi filed revocation action against Athena’s patent
  • Milan Central Division ordered €75,000 security for co
Legal Framework
  • Article 69.4 UPC Agreement (security for costs)
  • Rule 158.1 ROP
  • Rule 172.1 ROP (duty to provide evidence)
  • Rule 370.8 ROP (SME court fee reduction)
Main Ruling
  • SME status does not automatically exempt from security for costs
  • La Siddhi failed to provide counter-evidence to rebut financial concerns
  • €75,000 security order confirmed
Significance
  • Clarifies that SME exceptions exist only in specific rules (court fees, cost ceilings), not security for costs
  • Highlights ongoing concerns about UPC accessibility for SMEs
Case 3: Kodak v. Fujifilm
Court

Court of Appeal (UPC)

Date

2 June 2026

Timestamp

18 : 30  to 34 : 50

Core Issue

UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction over non-UPC territories (UK designation); interpretation of Article 34 UPCA

Key Facts
  • Fujifilm sued Kodak for infringement of patent with German and UK designations
  • Mannheim ruled patent valid and infringed in both Germany and UK
  • Kodak appealed, arguing Article 34 limits UPC jurisdiction to UPC territory only
  • Court of Appeal found patent valid but not infringed in Germany due to prior use
Legal Framework
  • Article 34 UPCA (scope of UPC decisions)
  • Article 31 UPCA (international jurisdiction)
  • Brussels I bis Regulation Article 71A (UPC as common court)
  • Article 4 Brussels I bis (defendant’s domicile)
Main Ruling
ScenarioSituationUPC JurisdictionHow does the UPC proceed?
Standalone revocation action concerning EP patents with extraterritorial effectThe defendant brings a revocation action concerning:
• EP designations in EU Member States or Lugano Convention States outside the UPC system;
• EP designations in non-EU or non-Lugano States outside the UPC system.		No jurisdiction.The UPC declines jurisdiction.
Infringement action where the EP patents are found to be invalidThe UPC finds that the patents are invalid, although the contested product would infringe if the relevant EP designations were valid.The UPC has jurisdiction over the infringement action, but the applicable regime differs depending on the EP designations concerned.First, the patent proprietor may withdraw the relevant claims within an appropriate period.

Distinction:

For EU/Lugano EP designations (outside the UPC):
• the defendant is invited to initiate revocation proceedings before the competent national courts;
• if such proceedings are initiated, the UPC may stay the infringement proceedings pending a final national decision (a stay will generally be appropriate);
• if no revocation action is brought, the patent is presumed valid and the infringement action proceeds on that basis.

For non-EU/non-Lugano EP designations (outside the UPC):
if the patent proprietor does not withdraw the claims, the infringement claims based on those designations are dismissed because the patent has been found invalid (unless specific circumstances justify a different approach).

Infringement action where the EP patents are valid and infringedThe UPC concludes that the patents are both valid and infringed.The UPC has jurisdiction.Where the patents are held to be valid and infringed, the UPC may issue conditional orders where there is a reasonable likelihood that the national courts will also uphold the validity of the extraterritorial EP designations.

This applies to both EU/Lugano and non-EU/non-Lugano EP designations.

• If the national court confirms the validity of the patent, the conditional orders remain in force and, once a final foreign decision has been rendered, may become permanent.

• If the national court revokes the patent in whole or in part, the conditions cease to apply and the orders automatically lapse (« fall away »).
The patent proprietor may then apply to the UPC within two months for consequential orders, including a stay of proceedings pending a final foreign decision.

Significance
  • Major clarification of UPC’s extraterritorial jurisdiction
  • Establishes comprehensive framework for handling non-UPC patent designations
  • Confirms conditional decision mechanism for validity uncertainties
Case 4: Infoblox v. Nixu
Court

Hamburg Local Division

Date

31 March 2026

Timestamp

34 : 52 to 38 : 46

Core Issue

Security for costs when claimant is a patent troll / single-purpose litigation entity

Key Facts
  • Nixu is newly established entity serving as litigation vehicle for Spectral IP (US patent troll)
  • Nixu acquired patent portfolio and immediately filed infringement action
  • Nixu pledged all potential proceeds to third party
  • Infoblox argued Nixu was essentially assetless
Legal Framework
  • Article 69.4 UPC Agreement
  • Rule 158 ROP (security for costs)
Main Ruling
  • €200,000 security for costs ordered
  • Court found Nixu is single-purpose litigation entity
  • Patent portfolio pledged to third party renders claimant « economically assetless »
Significance
  • Makes UPC less attractive for patent trolls using shell companies
  • Facilitates defendants’ ability to obtain security for costs against NPEs
Case 5: Valeo v. Robert Bosch
Court

Court of Appeal

Date

22 June 2026

Timestamp

38 : 48 to end

Core Issue

Internal jurisdiction distribution between Central Division and Local/Regional Divisions; anchoring mechanism under Article 33 UPCA

Key Facts
  • Valeo sued six Robert Bosch companies (including Serbian and Chinese entities) before Central Division
  • Bosch companies argued Central Division lacked jurisdiction
  • Central Division accepted objection and referred case to Düsseldorf Local Division
  • Valeo appealed both preliminary objections
Legal Framework
  • Article 33.1 UPCA (internal jurisdiction of UPC divisions)
  • Article 33.1(a) – place of infringement
  • Article 33.1(b) – anchoring defendant mechanism
  • Article 33.1(3) – Central Division competence for non-UPC defendants
Main Ruling
  • Article 33.1(3) is not an exception but an alternative jurisdiction option
  • No hierarchy between local/regional divisions and Central Division
  • When one defendant is outside UPC territory, claimant can choose Central Division OR any local/regional division where a defendant is located33
  • Central Division’s previous order was reversed
Significance
  • Major expansion of forum shopping options for claimants
  • Clarifies internal jurisdiction rules when defendants are located outside UPC territory
  • Establishes Central Division as equal alternative, not exception

Inscrivez-vous
à notre newsletter

Résumé de la politique de confidentialité

Vous êtes informé que l’utilisation du site internet, telle que notamment pour faire une demande de contact et/ou recevoir la newsletter, donne lieu, pour Loyer & Abello, à la collecte et au traitement automatisé de données à caractère personnel vous concernant, dont l’utilisation est soumise aux dispositions de la loi n° 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l’Informatique, aux Fichiers et aux Libertés telle que modifiée (ci-après, « Loi Informatique et Libertés ») et du Règlement européen pour la protection des données n°2016/679 du 27 avril 2016 (ci-après, « RGPD »).

Plus d'informations ici.